Brown v. City of Upper Arlington
Plaintiff: Mark Brown
Defendant: City of Upper Arlington
Case Number: 2:2008cv00849
Filed: September 10, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Civil Rights: Other Office
County: FRANKLIN
Presiding Judge: Michael H. Watson
Presiding Judge: Norah McCann King
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 28, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 31 OPINION and ORDER granting 22 Motion for Contempt; denying 23 Motion for Rehearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 9/28/09. (jr)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Brown v. City of Upper Arlington
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mark Brown
Represented By: Mark George Kafantaris
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: City of Upper Arlington
Represented By: Mark David Landes
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?